DMG2 Excerpt: Companion Characters

[FunkBGR]

Right now we have a guy with a "beast companion" that I use the mount rules to ad-hoc something in the game.

There's a group of adventurer's that are lower level that the PC's have teamed up with on a big fight.

This stuff is really useful to some DM's. I like that they gain healing surges, because that's definitely needed!

 

[avin]

Monster Builder should have a "convert to ally" option.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Monster Builder should have a "convert to ally" option.

Totally agreed.

 

[TerraDave]

Also been doing something like this, and as noted is to allow the extra charecter but to be easier then running a full PC.

Another reason is that the charecter needs to be good enough to contribute--hence level can't be too far of the baseline--but shouldn't be "PC grade" in most cases. Another reason for a cutback NPC.

I actually found this pretty useful. I definatly could have see a monster tag along in the parties future.

 

[Gort]

The way I always did companion characters in 4e was to treat them as a walking daily power. They wouldn't take part in the battle really (they might duke it out with a monster off to the side somewhere) but if the players asked them to help, they could bust out a move, once per day.

So a cleric NPC following the party might be able to do a holy word spell which let everyone spend a healing surge, or a ranger might be able to do 5[W] damage to a single target.

Means they're useful to have around without overshadowing anything.

 

[MrMyth]

Did I miss something, or did these rules basically boil down to "if the DM and players agree, it's okay to add a companion using the regular NPC stats."...?

I mean, there was considerable tweaking discussed, but really, what's the point.

I've already allowed the party to befriend a NPC Paladin (at a time they didn't have much healing themselves) who I gave 3 healing surges instead of the stupid one. (But who I otherwise used verbatim from the excellent Book of NPCs)

I don't really see anything that adds or changes this; what I'd call common sense.

So, did I miss something, or can we just skip that chapter when the book comes out?

You probably can, but 'common sense' advice can come in handy for many who are looking for guidelines - after all, the same argument could be made about most rules in the game, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful anyway.

NPCs that join the party can easily become either a liability, or overshadow PCs easily. Given the separation of PC/NPC stats in 4E, the disparity in capabilities is even greater. Having guidelines on appropriate hp, and advice concerning their powers and abilities, is very important. Similarly, it is good to tweak elements (like Healing Surges) to make them more viable for an adventuring day, rather than for one encounter (as monsters are intended for). Similarly, I am hoping the full chapter itself addresses the 'xp' issue on how having an NPC might modify the challenge of an encounter.

In any case, it is true that a skilled GM can figure out most of this on his own. But the same was said about a lot of the advice in the DMG1, and I disagreed with it then - yes, this is common sense advice than many DMs already know. But isn't that exactly what should be in a book like this? Information and advice that can help new DMs? Or it can give a skilled DM a new perspective - or simply remove the need to calculate on their own what is appropriate stats for a party companion, even if they can figure it out with some time.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There is an awful lot of gobbledigoook there for simple henchmen. I do like that the chapter addresses different types of companions beyond the typical hired hand that might end up in the party through campaign events.

Like most crunch in this edition there is a bit too much tweaking and fiddly bits. The automatic level adjusting kind of rubs me the wrong way.

No bonus gained from magic items? Taking the care to equip your companion well should be rewarded.

From this except the fluff sounds promising but the crunch gets an F-.

 

[Agamon]

Having 6 players, I don't see trying these rules out anytime soon (granted, they mention that off the bat in the article). When we first started playing, I made the mistake of having 2 NPCs join them...then I had to beef up the encounters...that was not a whole lot of fun, the fights were way too big and too long.

 

[JesterOC]

OTOH, I expect any Rangers wanting an animal companion to select the Two-Weapon build and get their DM to give them their bear or wolf through this ally system instead.

Thats what I'm thinking. Now the Bow Ranger can have a companion too.

 

[Jack7]

I've effectively used companion characters in every game I've ever run. It's good to see them in 4e.

In one way or another, me too.